Criticism of von der Leyen’s Migration Policy Stance
Following Ursula von der Leyen’s re-election as President of the European Commission, several political factions expressed their discontent regarding her approach to the European Union’s migration policy. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the Socialist, Green, and Renew Europe groups vocally criticized key elements presented in a letter she sent to the 27 EU leaders prior to last week’s European Council meeting. This debate, held in Strasbourg, focused heavily on the management of migration.
Iratxe García Pérez from Spain, who chairs the Socialists and Democrats group, was particularly vocal in her opposition. She urged von der Leyen to “abandon her inhumane and illegal proposal to establish deportation centres in third countries,” asserting that it is unacceptable to capitulate to the extreme right in endorsing a migration framework that contravenes human rights.
In her letter dated October 14, von der Leyen outlined ten action points, which included controversial suggestions aimed at outsourcing aspects of the EU’s migration policy. Notably, she called for enhanced partnerships with third countries to curb irregular arrivals and introduced the contentious notion of creating ‘return hubs’ outside of the EU.
During the debate, von der Leyen was notably absent, delegating her responsibilities to Helena Dalli, the European Commissioner for Equality. García Pérez and other members of her group sharply criticized the agreement reached between Italy and Albania to establish and manage two Italian processing facilities in the Balkan nation. Von der Leyen views this initiative as a model from which the EU can learn.
Currently, no migrants are being accommodated in these facilities, as an Italian court has blocked the transfer of 16 asylum seekers from Bangladesh and Egypt, ruling that their asylum requests must be processed in Italy, where their countries of origin are not classified as safe third countries. S&D MEP Cecilia Strada, representing Italy’s main opposition party, the Partito Democratico, described the centres in Albania as “a logistical nightmare, a legal disaster, a threat to human rights, and a significant cost.”
While these Albanian centres primarily aim to assess asylum applications from specific migrant categories, they could function as a type of return hub beyond the EU’s borders. This would mean that rejected asylum seekers could be detained there for up to 18 months pending their repatriation.
The Greens/EFA group also expressed strong opposition to the idea of holding rejected asylum seekers outside the EU before forcibly returning them to their countries. Dutch MEP Tineke Strik cautioned that “in the so-called return hubs, individuals would likely find themselves in limbo, facing indefinite detention without rights or prospects.” She added that such measures allow member states to evade their EU obligations.
The liberal Renew Europe group presented a more varied response. MEP Fabienne Keller from France, who co-reported on the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR) — a central component of the Migration and Asylum Pact agreed upon last spring — firmly opposed the so-called “innovative solutions” for outsourcing EU repatriation policies, including hubs situated far from Europe. She contended that these would be ineffective and increase vulnerability to coercion from third countries.
Conversely, some members within the Renew Europe group were less critical, advocating for member states to concentrate on implementing the Migration and Asylum Pact. Others, like Dutch lawmaker Malik Azmani, supported forging agreements with third countries reminiscent of the controversial EU-Tunisia deal, aimed at reducing irregular arrivals from North African nations.
Von der Leyen’s supporters from the European People’s Party generally defended her stance; however, criticism also arose from far-right factions, which consistently demand stricter asylum and repatriation policies. Italian MEP Paolo Borchia from the Patriots for Europe quipped, “The title of today’s debate is Managing migration in an effective and holistic way, which is exactly the opposite of what you have done up to now.”
It is important to note that the debate did not anticipate any resolution from the Parliament.